Boehner Talks Health Care

This report via Breitbart's wire deals with the radio address Boehner is slotted to make today. Palin called it a game changer on her Facebook page yesterday. That tells me they reached out to her and are going to try and take the discussion directly to the American people as much as they can.

First the short version of a critique of the Democrat's plan.

"This 1,990 pages of bureaucracy will centralize health care decision-making in Washington, D.C.," Boehner argued. "It'll require thousands of new federal employees. It'll put unelected boards, bureaus and commissions in charge of who gets access to what drug and what potentially lifesaving treatment."

Floor debate could begin next week on a sweeping bill developed by House Democrats that extends coverage to 96 percent of Americans, imposes new requirements on individuals and employers to get insurance and provides subsidies for lower-income people. The bill rolled out Thursday includes a new public insurance plan that would pay providers and hospitals at rates negotiated by the health and human services secretary.

"Speaker Pelosi's health care bill will raise the cost of Americans' health insurance premiums; it will kill jobs with tax hikes and new mandates; and it will cut seniors' Medicare benefits," Boehner said.

Then the Republican alternative in brief. We'll have to wait until after the address to see if he offers more than mostly what you might expect.

Across the Capitol, the Democratic-controlled Senate is expected to begin debate within two weeks on a bill crafted by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Boehner said there is a choice to be made: "We can come together to implement smart, fiscally responsible reforms to improve Americans' health care or we can recklessly pursue this government takeover that creates far more problems than it solves."

Boehner said a number of steps could be taken, such as letting people buy health insurance across state lines, allowing people and organizations to pool together to buy insurance for lower prices and reining in malpractice lawsuits.

Comments

[Chesley Perlmutter]

Unless Sarah has a FB post that summarizes what's in those proposals located at http://healthcare.gop.gov/ , I don't think it's a game changer at all. Sure, Sarah asking people to be sure to watch Boehner will get some of her followers to watch Boehner, but they're not the people who need to hear the Republican's proposals.

If Sarah expects the Republicans to get a pair, I'm afraid she's gonna be disappointed. Also, unless the MSM decides to let their viewers/readers know what the Republican proposals are, Boehner's words are wasted.

By taking the Republican proposals and putting them in common sense language, Sarah can make the difference because the media will give her comments the exposure that they won't give the Republican leadership. The Republicans have had these proposals out there for months, but who knows about them. The media will gladly play the soundbytes from the Dems saying that the Republicans are the party of no and have brought nothing to the debate, but they can't quite expose those assertions as flat out lies, or give the Republicans the opportunity to present their ideas.

I think Sarah needs to take the hatchet to the new Pelosi bill while showing the contrasts with the Republican proposals. And yes, she needs to show everyone how the Pelosi bill still has the equivalent of "a death panel", and I'm not talking about just the end-of-life counseling.

I strongly suspect that she's already got this in the works, including numerous footnotes to support her assertions.

I'm not sure that Boehner or anyone else in the Republican leadership has the ability to get the word out there to show just how bad the Pelosi bill is. When they do get the opportunity to speak out, they go all conciliatory. Instead of saying, here's how the Dems will take your money and control your life with this crap sandwich and here's exactly how we will solve the problem while allowing you to save money and control your own healthcare, they say we have proposals. Damn it, tell the people exactly what the proposals are, how they will work, and why they are better than the Dem's ideas.

I don't think the Republican leadership knows how to do this. Sarah does. Step aside and let her do it.

[montee]

@ Chesley. You are quite right. There quite a number of Republican governors who have enacted good and decent health-care reform ideas across the nation e.g Barbour of Mississippi, Jindal of Louisiana, Pawlenty of Minnesota, Perry of Texas even Palin while still in office. But guess who gets all the attention? Romney, whose reform efforts doesn't really reflect republican/conservative principles.

There have a been a number of quite decent Republican bills put forward, but they get no coverage or consideration. This is why so many Republican strategists keep calling for the party to "moderate" because they feel that is the only way to penetrate the Democrats and medias ability to block-out and demonize conservative ideas. The media and Democrats will continue to pretend and proclaim that there are no decent or sensible reform ideas coming from Republicans and unfortunately that will continue to be the view held by many.

Why? Because we have few politicians or policy experts (talk radio hosts and TV pundits don't count) who can either articulate their message in a manner that is easily understandable and difficult to mock or they do not have the ability to attract attention or get people interested in listening. Palin is one of a the few in recent years to possess some of those qualities.

Unfortunately I don't think she can or should be leading this push-back simply because I believe this needs to come from Congress where health-care reform is being crafted and negotiated. Palin doesn't have a seat at the table, neither is she involved in drafting legislation. It would be stupid to have her be the quarterback of any opposition. There are many decent congressmen and women who can give principled opposition and good ideas. I don't believe I need to name people, but they are there . They just need to get their act together.

[Bob]

Gee, that's funny. Because when Boehner was asked just a couple of days ago about the Republican "plan," he said the following:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/29/boehner-gop-72-hours/

QUESTION: Is it your plan to have one Republican alternative that you all would get behind and endorse?

BOHNER: We have a number of ideas that we would like to proffer in this process, and we’re not quite sure how the majority intends to proceed. And so until we understand how they intend to proceed, it’s pretty difficult for us to have a solid plan.

So even as recently as a couple of days ago, the House Republican leader says himself that they don't have "a solid plan." And even the "ideas" that he "proffers," like insurance pools and tort reform, have already been shown in non-partisan studies to have no chance of either controlling costs or reaching universal coverage. That's what you get when you ask Republicans for help on a serious domestic issue: empty posturing.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"So even as recently as a couple of days ago, the House Republican leader says himself that they don't have "a solid plan.""

Oh really?

Here's one -- the Patients' Choice Act, introduced in May.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277551107536875.html#mod=rss_opinion_main

And here's another one.

"The GOP plan was drafted by Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., a physician. It avoids expanding the federal role in overseeing the health insurance industry. Unlike Democratic proposals, it would not set up new federally regulated purchasing pools for individuals and small businesses. Instead, it would allow individuals to use the Internet to purchase lower-cost coverage available anywhere in the country. That idea won't please insurance commissioners from states with strong consumer protections, who have argued it will set off a "race to the bottom" that undermines coverage for those in frail health.

The plan would offer tax deductions and tax credits to help make the purchase of health insurance more affordable for individuals. It would provide grants to states to help set up high-risk pools for people with medical problems who are denied coverage by commercial insurers. And it would allow employers to automatically sign workers up for the company's coverage – similar to what's done with 401(k) retirement plans.

The GOP bill would take on medical malpractice, limiting jury awards for pain and suffering and creating new health courts in which a specially trained judge would hear and decide cases involving medical negligence.

It would give doctors what amounts to veto power over recommendations from a new federal board that's been assigned to compare the benefits of new treatments, tests and medications. Recommendations from the Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research could not be enacted without the approval of the medical specialty society that would be affected."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/29/house-republicans-unveil-_n_247301.html

In short, Republicans have posed several plans. Why wouldn't Bob know that? Is it because Bob is merely an ignorant talking points repeater, or is it because Bob is a flat-out dishonest and dishonorable liar?

[North Dallas Thirty]

"And even the "ideas" that he "proffers," like insurance pools and tort reform, have already been shown in non-partisan studies to have no chance of either controlling costs or reaching universal coverage."

Like this one?

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dafny/personal/Documents/Working%2520Papers/ADS_9_09w_ack.pdf

Money quote:

"We find evidence that caps on non-economic damages, collateral source reform, and joint and several liability reform reduce self-insured premiums by 1 to 2 percent each. When the effects of reform are estimated jointly, caps on non-economic damages and collateral source remain independently significant and their point estimates imply a joint reduction of healthcare costs of 2.3 percent. In addition, the effect of reform tends to increase over time."

But facts don't matter to Bob. His Barack Obama screams it, he believes it, like the good little racist sheep he is.

By the way, we should remember that Bob claims that groups that wholeheartedly endorse and support Barack Obama and the Obama Party, bash Republicans, and state openly that their avowed goal is to force single-payer health care on the United States are "objectively" and presumably "nonpartisan".

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/10/coping-with-government-run-health-care.html?cid=6a00d83451c1db69e20120a6735cc4970c#comment-6a00d83451c1db69e20120a6735cc4970c

[Bob]

Yes, NDT, I commanded you to waste more of your time writing up your B.S. replies, and you complied dutifully. Well done.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Again, Bob, you seem to be under the misconception that simply finding facts that refute your Obama Party talking points is in any way difficult.

Perhaps that's what Obama has managed to instill in you and his other worshipers to avoid anyone getting any ideas, but it certainly isn't effective on people with intellectual curiosity, education, and a willingness to work. Granted, those characteristics are suppressed and demonized within the Obama Party, so it's no surprise to any of us that you don't reflect them.

[Bob]

You're so hilariously pompous. I'm sure, in your own mind, all of western culture depends on your wooden assemblages of wing nut talking points. But there's no point in taking someone like you seriously, because you're not honest. You're a pure propagandist. You're a zealot with no ability for introspection or self-doubt. And almost worst of all, you're an overbearing bore. Anyway, blather on, like I care one way or the other.

[Philip McDaniel]

Well, Bob, I see that you have correctly identified yourself.

[Ad rem]

For Halloween, Bob's going as himself.....

[North Dallas Thirty]

"You're so hilariously pompous."

Not really. You're simply used to the Obama Party, where success, education, and hard work are demonized and failure, corruption, and welfare dependence are supported and endorsed.

[WPE]

"Not really. You're simply used to the Obama Party, where success, education, and hard work are demonized and failure, corruption, and welfare dependence are supported and endorsed."

Amd that folks, from someone who thinks Sarah The Quitter Palin should be our next president.

[North Dallas Thirty]

The funny part is that the Obama Party is the one who supports quitting -- when it comes to living on welfare and refusing to work and when it comes to dropping out of high school.

Even more hilarious, the Obama Party attacks and files frivolous ethics complaints against Republicans with the express purpose of harassing and bankrupting them while demanding that Obama Party contributors who actually commit ethics violations be given six-figure salaries and benefits at taxpayer expense.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/31/090831fa_fact_brill

[North Dallas Thirty]

That really was Sarah Palin's mistake. If she'd aborted her baby, then gone on welfare and demanded tax increases so that she could have free health care and get fatter checks, the Obama Party and WPE would support her.

But because she kept her baby, kept working, and dared to criticize them, the Obama Party and its misogynists like WPE have to attack and destroy her. They can't stand that a woman can be successful without worshiping them and obediently doing everything they say.

[WPE]

The fact is that Ms. Palin ran for governor, won, took the oath of office, made if halfway through her term, then QUIT.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"The fact is that Ms. Palin ran for governor, won, took the oath of office, made if halfway through her term, then QUIT."

And the fact is that Barack Obama, by that definition, has quit every single job that he's ever held.

The problem here is that WPE doesn't care if people "quit", as long as they quit for the right reasons. He doesn't like the fact that Sarah Palin refused to stay in office to be a target for his Obama Party's abuse of ethics laws and stated attempts to bankrupt her, so that's why he's whining about "quitting". It's really a matter of spite at being outmaneuvered, especially when it becomes obvious that Sarah Palin has not only managed to make money, but send his blessed Barack Obama reeling with a few simple tweets and Facebook postings.

But it's typical of Barack Obama. Really, Obama is a very spiteful child; if he's facing an adversary, rather than make a case for why he's right, he attacks and tries to tear them down. We saw it with the Obama campaign's deliberate and illegal accessing of state records to try to destroy Joe the Plumber, as well as Barack Obama's statements that an Inspector General who discovered and called out massive corruption by Barack Obama's crony Kevin Johnson was senile.

[Bob]

"Not really. You're simply used to the Obama Party, where success, education, and hard work are demonized and failure, corruption, and welfare dependence are supported and endorsed."

See what I mean, North Dallas? Your writing is so stilted and robotic. It's like you've got no soul or something. Are you an actual person, or rather some kind of artificial "intelligence" that's designed to comb right wing blogs for the latest rhetoric and assemble it into random wing nut diatribes? Maybe they need to go to your "Preferences" menu and turn down the "Cornball" and "Pomposity" settings so you come off as slightly less of a dweeb.

[Ad rem]

Bob(translation):

You're really gettin on my nerves NDT....I'm incappable of winning an argument with you, and am tired of coming off as the foolish "tool".

[WPE]

I just don't see someone who cut and ran getting elected President. But please nominate her, let her run, and we'll see who's right. Course, she can always continue her writing career - next book up I hear is "Hot I Quit My Job and Became a Millionaire".

[Ad rem]

You're also "incapable"....(spell check).

[Tom_Ohio]

"The fact is that Ms. Palin ran for governor, won, took the oath of office, made if halfway through her term, then QUIT."

Governor Palin was just about forced to quit due to a very strange quirk in an Alaska statute, SP was attacked using the only effective vector that the whole of the DEMs and Socializing for American could come up with.
Why do you think that it was such an important story about the leaked names of Congress persons that are under investigation ? If they find that leaker that person is gonna do jail time.
Governor Palin's investigations were about wearing jackets with a business name and holding fish, and yet were used by the lame stream to somehow build some big "ethics issue" about her.
I am fairly certain that whomever was behind the harrasment of Governor Palin is getting kicked every day and is probably going to leave the White House very soon.
Now, as to the actual subject, the Republicans have ideas but no Bill, seeing as they do not have any chairmanships and hold no committees they can not make a Bill.
In Texas tort reform has already decreased doctors malpractice insurance so much that they are one of the only states that have increasing numbers of specialists coming there to practice medicine, ALL other states are losing specialists ( like OB-GYNs )
The only issue holding the idea of purchasing insurance across state lines is State Control.
Repubs are loathe to tell states that they must relinquish their own insurance commissions and their own versions of what coverage that they themselves now mandate.
I say it is a comment sense thing. People know what coverage they need and want, allow them to purchase it, and stop telling them what they MUST have.
These congress persons are involved in FELONIES, yet you hear nothing, not a peep, nada.

[Bob]

"In Texas tort reform has already decreased doctors malpractice insurance so much that they are one of the only states that have increasing numbers of specialists coming there to practice medicine, ALL other states are losing specialists"

Yes, tort reform is the favorite hobby horse of conservatives pretending that they have ideas to fix healthcare. In reality, most serious studies of the issue have found that it has very limited ability to reduce healthcare costs. One example is a 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office, which concluded:

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0

"Several studies have found that various types of restrictions on malpractice liability can indeed reduce total awards and thereby lead to lower premiums for malpractice insurance. By themselves, however, such changes do not affect economic efficiency: they modify the distribution of gains and losses to individuals and groups but do not create benefits or costs for society as a whole. The evidence for indirect effects on efficiency--through changes in defensive medicine, the availability of medical care, or the extent of malpractice--is at best ambiguous."

So even though your doctor may be saving a little money on his/her insurance premiums, there's no evidence that it translates into greater efficiency (i.e. lower costs) for the average healthcare consumer. And even to the extent that there may be reduced costs somewhere in the equation (even if it never makes its way to consumers), the magnitude is too small to have any significant effect anyway. The CBO study says:

"Savings of that magnitude would not have a significant impact on total health care costs, however. Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending.(12) Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small."

So please explain to us, Tom, how a 0.4 to 0.5% reduction in health insurance premiums will do any good at all for American healthcare consumers?

[North Dallas Thirty]

And notice how the spinning Bob ignores the study he was presented with above, which is five years newer than the talking points he spews.

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dafny/personal/Documents/Working%2520Papers/ADS_9_09w_ack.pdf

Money quote:

"We find evidence that caps on non-economic damages, collateral source reform, and joint and several liability reform reduce self-insured premiums by 1 to 2 percent each. When the effects of reform are estimated jointly, caps on non-economic damages and collateral source remain independently significant and their point estimates imply a joint reduction of healthcare costs of 2.3 percent. In addition, the effect of reform tends to increase over time."

Or the most recent CBO estimate:

"CBO now estimates that implementing a typical package of tort reform proposals nationwide would reduce total U.S. health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion in 2009). That figure is the sum of a direct reduction in spending of 0.2 percent from lower medical liability premiums and an additional indirect reduction of 0.3 percent from slightly less utilization of health care services. (Those estimates take into account the fact that because many states have already implemented some of the changes in the package, a significant fraction of the potential cost savings has already been realized.)

"Enacting a typical set of proposals would reduce federal budget deficits by roughly $54 billion over the next 10 years, according to estimates by CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee of Taxation. That figure includes savings of roughly $41 billion from Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, as well as an increase in tax revenues of roughly $13 billion from a reduction in private health care costs that would lead to higher taxable wages.

But that’s not the end of the savings, either. A 0.5% reduction in health-care costs would mean $11 billion in savings per year overall, with roughly 40% of that benefiting the federal government in Medicare and other federal program costs. That amounts to a whopping $110 billion in cost savings over ten years to the entire medical industry, which would help keep premiums in check for consumers."

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/10/cbo-tort-reform-would-save-54-billion-to-the-deficit/

So why do Bob and his Obama Party oppose reducing Americans' health care costs? Why do they continue to support driving up the amount that Americans and health providers have to pay so that Barack Obama can continue to receive large kickbacks from lawyers? Is it because, as the Obama Party admits, they don't care about Americans' welfare, and only care about pleasing the multimillionaire Obama Party trial lawyers?

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/27/video-dean-says-no-tort-reform-because-trial-lawyers-too-intimidating/

[North Dallas Thirty]

Meanwhile, remember how Bob was shrieking and screaming that health insurers earned "obscene" profits and that anyone who was at the level they were or higher should be placed under punitive taxation?

So let's see; health insurers have an average profit of 6% or less, while trial lawyers have an average profit margin of 14% or more.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/25/ap-finally-reports-on-insurance-industrys-thin-margins/

So since Bob and his shill party want to tax health insurers at 100%, then they should be taxing trial lawyers at even higher, right?

[Bob]

"When the effects of reform are estimated jointly, caps on non-economic damages and collateral source remain independently significant and their point estimates imply a joint reduction of healthcare costs of 2.3 percent."

In wing nut world, people pretend that a 2.3% reduction in healthcare costs is a big deal. How utterly, laughably pathetic. 2.3% means you're saving $2.30 for every $100 you spend. A reduction like that wouldn't even count as a sale at Target, and it sure as hell wouldn't make a bit of difference in the overall healthcare picture. 2.3% doesn't even reach the standard of "half-assed." If "ideas" like this are supposed to represent meaningful healthcare reform, presented by a hard-core partisan like North Dallas Thirty as the epitome of what the Republican Party can do for YOU, then it really proves the point that, for all practical purposes, they have no ideas worth seriously discussing. I rest my case.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"In wing nut world, people pretend that a 2.3% reduction in healthcare costs is a big deal."

Let's see; a 0.5% reduction, according to the CBO, results in a reduction in costs of $11 billion per year, or around $110 billion over ten years. 2.3% would be 4.6 times that, or $506 billion over ten years.

In contrast, just a few weeks ago, Obama puppets and shills like Bob were whining and bragging that their faux "bill" is totally wonderful because it reduces health care costs by $81 billion over ten years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/cbo-baucus-bill-reduces-d_n_313017.html

In short, we could implement a bill that costs nearly a trillion dollars and would save $81 billion in health care costs in its first ten years, primarily because it charges without paying out for the first three.....or we could simply pass tort reform and save over $500 billion over ten years WITHOUT having to spend an additional trillion in the first place.

So let's see....Bob wants you to pay a trillion dollars and get $81 billion in savings over ten years, and normal people want you to pay nothing and get over $500 billion in savings over ten years.

The problem is that the latter option does nothing for getting Bob free health coverage at other peoples' expense and keeping the kickbacks he and his party receive for doing the trial lawyers' bidding, while the former does at the expense of working people and taxpayers. Hence, Bob opposes the latter, which provides real savings to working people without government waste, and supports the former, which benefits the industry shills who actually control him and his Obama Party.

[North Dallas Thirty]

And what makes this funny is what the blabbering child Bob doesn't admit.

"2.3% means you're saving $2.30 for every $100 you spend. A reduction like that wouldn't even count as a sale at Target, and it sure as hell wouldn't make a bit of difference in the overall healthcare picture."

So let's see here.

2.3% of $100 is 2.30.

2.3% of $1,000,000,000 (one billion) is $23 million.

2.3% of $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion) is $23 billion.

And 2.3% of $2 trillion, which is what the US is estimated to spend annually on health care, is $56 billion dollars.

$56 billion is not pocket change, Bob. To put that in perspective, last year, the estimated total cost to the US for all operations in Afghanistan was $42.1 billion dollars.

But you don't want to reduce health care costs by $56 billion per year for Americans because it would disrupt your kickbacks from the trial lawyers. Your Obama Party puts the interests of lining your own pockets with millions of dollars in kickbacks ahead of saving Americans billions of dollars in health care costs annually.

Also, blabbering Bob, you scream and whine that it's "too expensive" to have troops in Afghanistan at $42.1 billion -- but then you refuse to take action that would immediately reduce annual health care costs by $56 billion, even more than that, because you claim that "doesn't make any difference".

You offer no value to the American people, Bob. Your Barack Obama is such a fool that he claims $42.1 billion is too much one minute, then a miniscule cost the next. That makes it obvious to everyone that your Party has no ideas, no value, and no intelligence.

[Bob]

North Dallas Thirty is apparently unable to make a distinction between a significant overhaul of the entire healthcare system in order to create universal healthcare coverage for almost all Americans, versus a tiny effort -- perhaps it would be fair to call it a gesture -- that would do nothing but reduce the current cost of health insurance for some people by at most 2%. That's universal healthcare for all Americans versus the equivalent of a BigMac for every $100 of healthcare costs.

And mind you, Obama has already suggested that tort reform should be made part of his own healthcare reform efforts. But unlike the Republicans, Obama doesn't present this as the be-all-and-end-all of healthcare reform, but as simply a way to save a little bit that might be worth doing as part of a much larger effort. Typically, the Republicans would make something like this -- a measly 2% savings -- as one of the most important "centerpieces" of their "reform" "ideas." As I was saying, the Republicans' ideas would have to significantly improve even to reach the level of "half-assed."

[North Dallas Thirty]

Furthermore, Bob, here's proof for you to demonstrate that you're not just a partisan hypocrite.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9n5u8khGqNQT6DTlcKGV6ouKqfQD9BLULIG2

You and your Barack Obama argued that warrantless wiretapping was a Constitutional violation, never had any value, and in fact was grounds for impeaching Bush.

Now that Obama is defending it and doing it, please state publicly that, since it is an impeachable offense according to you, Obama should be impeached -- and that you and your Obama Party will begin immediate impeachment proceedings.

[Bob]

"Now that Obama is defending it and doing it, please state publicly that, since it is an impeachable offense according to you, Obama should be impeached -- and that you and your Obama Party will begin immediate impeachment proceedings."

I suppose it's hard for a mindless partisan like you, North Dallas, to imagine someone who's not slavishly devoted to virtually any politician from their own party. In fact, I think that Obama has been wrong about a lot of things, and I've written him numerous emails complaining about it. One of the areas that I disagree with him most strongly about is his administration's refusal to investigate and prosecute breaches of the Constitution and the law during the Bush/Cheney administration, and his continuance of some of those same policies. The law is the law, and if Obama's administration violates those laws, then they're guilty too, just like Bush and Cheney. I think their current stance is disgraceful.

Of course you would never have protested any such thing if it were the Bush administration doing it, would you? So why would you care if Obama does it? Oh, right, because YOU're the actual hypocrite here.

[Bob]

"And 2.3% of $2 trillion, which is what the US is estimated to spend annually on health care, is $56 billion dollars."

If we take an average cost of a personal health insurance premium at, let's say, $5,000 per year, then taking 2% off of that tab, the price would then be $4,900 instead. In whose universe is this going to make the difference between coverage/no coverage or life/death for virtually ANYONE? Again, you're trying to compare a comprehensive plan to bring health insurance coverage to tens of millions of Americans who didn't have it before, versus the equivalent of a couple of extra tanks of gas over the course of a whole year.

Again, Obama has already said that he supports tort reform. But please don't pretend that it represents anything substantial in the overall debate.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Of course you would never have protested any such thing if it were the Bush administration doing it, would you?"

Problem is, Bob, you DID protest it, you DID shriek that it was an impeachable offense, and you DID demand that Bush should be impeached.

Now that it's Obama, you refuse to even state that Obama is guilty, much less that Obama is committing impeachable offenses and that Obama should be impeached, even though you admit that Obama is continuing the same policy. Your hypocrisy becomes more and more obvious with every time you try to spin.

As for your "emails"? Of course; that would be because, if you actually wrote a posting that people could see and review critical of Obama, you would be immediately cut off by the DNC. That's not what they're paying you to do.

[North Dallas Thirty]

LOL....notice again the hilarity from the talking points repeater Bob.

1. $506 billion in cost reduction over ten years is not "substantial".

2. $81 billion in cost reduction over ten years is "significant".

Then Bob tries the next lie from Obama, who believes his black skin exempts him from having to tell the truth.

"Again, Obama has already said that he supports tort reform."

He lies, as usual.

Obama's "health plan" supposedly supports tort reform -- but refuses to allow any component of it, such as caps on damages or limiting of attorneys' fees. Indeed, it explicitly bans states who already have such things in place from receiving funds.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/148242

Notice again the hypocrisy. The paid whore Bob, who does nothing more than shill for trial lawyers, demands that health insurers be massively taxed and have their fees limited -- but adamantly refuses to cap attorneys' fees, one of the major drivers of malpractice and health care costs.

[Bob]

"The paid whore Bob, who does nothing more than shill for trial lawyers . . ."

Paid whore? As opposed to you who gives it away for free to whoever happens to be in the stall next door? I've got neither a vested interest in any corporate or professional entity, like trial lawyers, insurance companies, or whatever, nor a personal stake in universal healthcare, since I get a pretty good benefits package from my employer. I want universal healthcare because it's the right thing to do for this country. Making up bizarre accusations about me, a person that you don't know anything about, really just proves -- like I keep saying -- that you're dishonest and dishonorable. Why should your opinion count for anything when you so profligately just make stuff up? I actually think you've got a screw loose.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"I've got neither a vested interest in any corporate or professional entity, like trial lawyers"

Then you should have no problem supporting a massive tax on their windfall profits (over twice that of the health insurers whose profits you consider obscene) and caps on their fees, since you demand that health care providers and insurers cap their fees.

But for some reason, you fight that tooth and nail, even though the CBO estimates show that it would save Americans over half a trillion dollars in health care costs. Why? Because you're a paid whore for the trial lawyers, that's why, and you're a puppet for the Obama Party, who receives millions of dollars in kickbacks and bribes from these trial lawyers.

And then what's really pathetic is this:

"I want universal healthcare because it's the right thing to do for this country."

Of course, the moocher tries to pretend he cares about others -- even as he supports massive tax increases that pressure working families and small businesses so that welfare addicts like himself don't have to work, and as he refuses any sort of tort reform because, even though it would save Americans hundreds of billions of dollars, it would hurt the profits of the trial lawyers for which he shills and whores.

[Bob]

"LOL....notice again the hilarity from the talking points repeater Bob.

1. $506 billion in cost reduction over ten years is not "substantial".

2. $81 billion in cost reduction over ten years is "significant"."

North Dallas, your clear intent is to mislead and obfuscate rather than try to have an honest discussion. First, a significant amount of tort reform has already occurred. It makes it even LESS likely that further tort reform would translate into significant healthcare cost savings. A 2009 CBO report to Orrin Hatch puts the numbers in perspective:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf

"CBO estimates that the direct costs that providers will incur in 2009 for medical
malpractice liability—which consist of malpractice insurance premiums together with
settlements, awards, and administrative costs not covered by insurance—will total
approximately $35 billion, or about 2 percent of total health care expenditures.

[...]

CBO now estimates, on the basis of an analysis incorporating the results of recent
research, that if a package of proposals such as those described above was enacted, it
would reduce total national health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion
in 2009). That figure is the sum of the direct reduction in spending of 0.2 percent from lower medical liability premiums, as discussed earlier, and an additional indirect
reduction of 0.3 percent from slightly less utilization of health care services. (That
reduction is the estimated net effect of the entire package listed earlier, although some
components of that package might increase the utilization of physicians’ services, as has
already been noted.) CBO’s estimate takes into account the fact that because many states
have already implemented some of the changes in the package, a significant fraction of
the potential cost savings has already been realized."

So the number is 35 billion, not 56 billion per year. Of course, actual malpractice DOES happen, and regardless of tort reform, some people will still be harmed by real malpractice and will be entitled to fair compensation. Maybe you can tell us exactly what proportion of that 35 billion was deserved or not.

In any case, the CBO, as recently as this year, says that the most that could be gained by further tort reform would be a reduction in national healthcare expenditures of only 0.5%. That's even less than the already-measly 2% that other studies (perhaps because they're not so recent) have come up with. The closer you look at the numbers, the more your Republicans' highly-touted tort reform plans look like a sorry load of B.S. whose only purpose is to pretend that Republicans have "ideas."

You can spin it however you want, but 0.5% wouldn't even qualify as a margin of error in most scientific studies, and sure as hell won't make a bit of difference to this country's overall healthcare picture. 0.5% is what Americans can expect from the Republican Party: crumbs and leftovers once the corporate fat cats have gorged themselves. So much for your laughable attempt to portray this as something significant or worthwhile.

[Bob]

Let me re-emphasize: the CBO says that the 0.5% savings due to tort reform would amount to 11 billion dollars per year. That's 11 billion out of a total cost of 2.5 trillion for healthcare in 2009 as estimated by the Kaiser Family Foundation:

http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7692_02.pdf

Put differently, if the average person's share of healthcare costs is $8,160 per resident, reducing that sum by 0.5% would amount to 40 fricking dollars PER YEAR. That's what North Dallas Thirty brags about as the Republicans oh-so-generous and idea-licious contribution to our healthcare crisis. It may not make a significant difference to anyone, assuming that even that measly $40 holds up to further scrutiny, but maybe you could just barely afford to take the family out once a year to Appleby's if nobody gets dessert or beverages. "Let them eat cake" comes to mind. LOL.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"That's even less than the already-measly 2% that other studies (perhaps because they're not so recent) have come up with."

Poor, foolish, talking points repeating child.

You didn't even read the study that was quoted above, did you?

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dafny/personal/Documents/Working%2520Papers/ADS_9_09w_ack.pdf

Notice the dishonesty and outright stupidity of the Obama Party and trial lawyer paid whore here; he claims to be interested in "facts", but dismisses without reading a real, objective study as "not so recent" -- when it was published in September 2009.

No interest in facts. No intellectual curiosity. No honesty. Just dishonest shilling and repeating of talking points without reading real, objective studies. That's all that Bob does -- which we should expect, given that he's nothing but a paid whore for the trial lawyers.

But wait, there's more:

"So the number is 35 billion, not 56 billion per year."

And the dishonest paid whore for the trial lawyers claims that's not worth anything and laughs at it.

But then, what does the paid whore's "plan" save?

$81 billion dollars over ten years -- or $8.1 billion dollars PER YEAR, at the immediate cost of $1 trillion dollars.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/cbo-baucus-bill-reduces-d_n_313017.html

Or, put differently, the paid whore for the trial lawyers is claiming that $8.1 billion per year while putting down a TRILLION more dollars to get it is a huge savings -- while arguing that $35 billion per year while putting down NOTHING is "measly". The paid whore Bob is whining that $40 per year is nothing, while bragging that the ten bucks that HIS plan "saves" per year using the same math, not counting the trillion-dollar up front investment, is "huge".

What becomes obvious here is that the paid whore doesn't care about health care costs. The paid whore cares only about protecting the profits of the trial lawyers and the bribes and kickbacks they pay to the Obama Party. The paid whore doesn't even cover the dishonesty of his pimp Obama, who flat-out lied about supporting tort reform when the pimp Obama banned it in the so-called "health care bill".

[North Dallas Thirty]

Also, what we should remember is this:

-- Tort reform costs the taxpayers nothing while saving hundreds of billions of dollars over ten years

-- The paid whore Bob's "health care plan" saves taxpayers $81 billion over ten years while costing them a TRILLION dollars -- over ten times as much as they actually "save" -- up front.

To put it differently, in the wingnut universe of the paid whore Bob, you have to pay $1,000 extra dollars to save $81 bucks.

[Bob]

"The paid whore Bob is whining that $40 per year is nothing, while bragging that the ten bucks that HIS plan "saves" per year using the same math, not counting the trillion-dollar up front investment, is "huge"."

Sorry, North Dallas, but you presented this measly $40/0.5% savings -- apparently the best that the brain trust of the Republican Party could come up with -- as some kind of "game changer." Now that we see the true paltry magnitude of it, it becomes clear that yours and the Republican Party's pretense to have "ideas" is nothing but a fraud. Your flailing attempts at on-the-fly arithmetic combined with cheap invective only adds to the desperate, pathetic nature of your vastly overblown claims. When discussing your next "idea," let's agree beforehand that it's not a significant "game changer" if the equivalent amount in $20 bills couldn't easily be shoved into your nasal cavity.

So what do you plan to do with YOUR $40? You could buy a copy of Sarah Palin's book and still have change left over for a Garfield calendar, you pathetic putz. God you're so cheaply and easily bought.

[North Dallas Thirty]

And again, we note the complete dishonesty of the paid whore Bob.

The paid whore Bob claims he wants to reduce health care costs -- but when presented with an idea that does so, that has been PROVEN to do so, and that would save Americans hundreds of billions of dollars WITHOUT increasing expense to the taxpayer, he flat-out rejects it.

Why? Because he has to protect the profits of the trial lawyers who control the Obama Party and pay him, no matter how corrupt they are or how much they overcharge plaintiffs.

http://public.cq.com/docs/cqw/weeklyreport110-000002707734.html

http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/archive/classaction/articles.cfm?ID=9370

So again -- notice how the paid whores Bob and Nancy Pelosi shriek that a 6% profit is "windfall", but insist that trial lawyers collecting 70 cents on the dollar in "fees" out of plaintiffs' awards is not.

That shows that Bob is a dishonest liar who is not interested in reducing health care costs, but in increasing taxes, punishing working people and businesses, and protecting the massive profits of the trial lawyers who give bribes and kickbacks to the Obama Party.

[Bob]

Once again, it turns out that the GOP's highly touted "game changing" idea for tort reform would amount to a paltry savings of $40.00 per year for the average American's healthcare costs, as calculated by the Congressional Budget Office just last month. This is touted by rubes like North Dallas Thirty as the centerpiece of what the Republican Party's "ideas" can mean for American healthcare consumers. While spending an average of over $8,000 per year on healthcare costs, here's what that $40 savings -- the best the Republican Party can offer regular Americans -- will buy at your local drug store:

Band-Aids $4.19
Reusable cold pack back pad $29.99
Box of Kleenex $3.19
Chapstick $2.29

Well that seems to be about it: not even a fully-stocked first aid kit, from the looks of it. That's quite a "game changer," isn't it? LOL. Maybe North Dallas Forty-Bucks-a-Year will quibble that we could have gone for the cheaper, non-reusable cold pack, and gotten even more "game changing" action from all the hard work the Republican Party did on our behalf. How. Fricking. Pathetic.

And what's with the "paid whore" business anyway? Why would North Dallas Forty-Bucks-a-Year make up a bizarre accusation like that? Does he seriously think that I do this for money? Unlike the Republican Party, I have no interest in pitting the well-being of regular people against the profits of some corporation, I'm not a lawyer, I have no personal stake in tort reform, and I already get a good health insurance package from my employer. That's the truth, and if North Dallas Forty-Bucks-a-Year has to make up stories to the contrary, it only shows that he's apparently afraid that his "game changing" claims can't stand up on their own merits, without embellishing with falsehoods and hysterical misinformation.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Again, the hilarity comes when the paid whore Bob tries to blabber about health care costs.

Bob denigrates the savings achieved from tort reform as being "miniscule" on an individual level.

But we should be making an honest comparison -- including the fact that the paid whore Bob intends to assess an additional trillion dollars in taxes and costs for his "plan".

So what is $1 trillion, the cost of the Obama "plan", for each American?

An additional $3,200 per person.

So let's be clear; Bob doesn't want Americans to save on health care costs, but instead wants them to pay even MORE than they are already paying. Indeed, he and his Obama Party, dependent on kickbacks and bribes from trial lawyers, are actually BANNING proven methods of saving costs because it would interfere with the profits of the trial lawyer industry and demanding that Americans pay thousands of dollars MORE.

"Unlike the Republican Party, I have no interest in pitting the well-being of regular people against the profits of some corporation"

Which is why Bob opposes and attacks things that would save money for regular people but hurt the profits of the trial lawyers.

The paid whore Bob wants people to pay thousands more for health coverage so that his trial lawyer friends can make profits double what he and his fellow paid whore Nancy Pelosi shrieked were "obscene".

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/25/ap-finally-reports-on-insurance-industrys-thin-margins/

Meanwhile, the Obama "plan" uses dishonest accounting to hide the fact that it spirals costs completely out of control while cutting services.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

[Bob]

North Dallas Forty-Bucks, having been whipped over his exaggerated claims about tort reform, now doesn't even bother to contest the conclusion that a 0.5% savings on healthcare costs is "miniscule." Instead, knowing he's beat and having no further recourse, he tries to pivot to an apples-to-oranges critique of REAL healthcare reform, apparently implying that an ineffectual face-saving gambit by the GOP can in any way be said to be comparable to a real plan for universal healthcare.

NDFB doesn't believe in universal healthcare, because he thinks the only reform that Americans deserve is the pathetic pittance -- 0.5% savings or $40 a year per person -- that the GOP is willing to toss them. That's the best that NDFB and the Republican Party have to offer. Take it or leave it. Would you like a bag for your Band-Aids, cold pack, Kleenex and Chap-Stik? Fortunately the bag won't cost extra, otherwise NDFB and the GOP wouldn't let you have it. Something about "socialism." LOL.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Awww, what's the matter, Bob? Don't want to deal with the fact that your Obama "plan" burdens people who are already paying for health coverage with thousands of dollars in additional costs?

That's because it makes it obvious what a moocher you are. You refuse to work, refuse to pay taxes, and refuse to pay for your own health care; instead, you try to burden working families and productive people with more costs so you can have everything without working.

The difference between the Republican and Obama Party plans is simple. Republicans believe that it is your choice to purchase health insurance and focus instead on things that will drive costs down and increase choice, like tort reform, elimination of mandates for coverage, and allowing people to buy insurance across state lines. Obama Party members want to increase the costs people are already paying by thousands of dollars so that those who refuse to work, refuse to pay taxes, and refuse to take care of their families can mooch off those who do.

Bluntly put, Bob and his fellow Obama Party members are too lazy and worthless to work, but they that everyone else pay for their health care.
According to the babbling Bob, parents who gamble away their money rather than paying for their children to have health insurance are making the right choice, and the government should force other people to pay for their children's health insurance instead.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Again, let's demonstrate the point here.

Bob, the paid whore for the trial lawyers and the Obama Party doesn't want to work and earn his health coverage.

So he looks across the street, where a middle-class family of four is currently paying $8,160 per year, per person, for their health insurance.

And what does the moocher and paid whore Bob do?

He levies an additional $3,200 PER PERSON -- or $12,800 total -- on that family to pay for HIS health coverage. He doesn't have to contribute a dime, because he gets "tax credits" -- even though, since he never works, he doesn't pay taxes. He's actually getting free health coverage without having to lift a finger -- and each person in that family is on the hook for another $3,200.

Then he babbles and whines about how "awful" the Republican plan is that would leave that family's costs at $8,160 per person and recognize additional savings.

Of course it's awful. It means that, if Bob the paid whore wants health coverage, he has to work for it and pay for it HIMSELF.

So as he did when he was a child, he starts screaming and namecalling, insisting that people who require him to pay for his own health care are muderers and don't care about others.

The moocher doesn't want to contribute. He doesn't want to help. He just wants everyone else to pay his bills.

THAT is what Barack Obama and the Obama Party are all about. And that is the sole goal of the paid whore Bob.

[Bob]

"That's because it makes it obvious what a moocher you are. You refuse to work, refuse to pay taxes, and refuse to pay for your own health care; instead, you try to burden working families and productive people with more costs so you can have everything without working."

NDFB has now totally abandoned his earlier pretenses about the GOP's "game changing" ideas for healthcare reform, and has fallen back on his predictable last refuge: fabricating bogus, childish accusations. There's the proof that NDFB has no ideas, only lame B.S. and outright lies. QED. LOL.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Of course, those "bogus, childish accusations" that the paid whore Bob is blabbering about are very straightforward.

-- Take the number Bob cited above

"the average person's share of healthcare costs is $8,160 per resident"

-- Take the known cost of $1 trillion that Bob's "health care plan" and divide it by the number of residents in the United States that Bob used to come up with his $8,160 number (312.5 million, to be precise).

-- Point out that $1 trillion divided by 312.5 million is $3,200 -- which is the additional amount in that Bob's plan would levy on every single man, woman, and child in America just to pay for the plan itself, ignoring the fact that even the CBO has admitted that said plan will drive up premiums and costs.

Just because you won't pay the costs, Bob, doesn't mean that they don't exist. Your problem is that, being an Obama Party member, you simply don't care how much you raise other peoples' costs; your only concern is getting freebies without having to work for them.

[Bob]

Harry Reid calls for the Congressional Republicans to put up or shut up about their supposed healthcare reform "plans" in a letter he sent to them today:

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/harry-reid-calls-transparency-gops-bluff-is-your-health-care-bill-a-secret-or-merely-non-existent/

"While the two health care reform plans that are serving as the main building blocks for the merged bill have been publicly available for quite some time, I would note that the Republican leadership’s health care plan remains a secret, unless perhaps it does not exist.

Needless to say, I fully understand if your plan is still under development, and would not presume to suggest that you publicly share draft legislative text for even an individual element of your plan, let alone an entire bill, before it is finalized.

However, as soon as a comprehensive Republican alternative is complete, I hope you will be willing to immediately make it public. I am sure you agree that the American people deserve the opportunity to fully review both parties’ health careform plans before we begin this important debate."

Don't hold your breath, Harry.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Isn't it amazing how ignorant Harry Reid and his babbling puppet Bob are?

Here's one -- the Patients' Choice Act, introduced in May.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277551107536875.html#mod=rss_opinion_main

And here's another one.

"The GOP plan was drafted by Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., a physician. It avoids expanding the federal role in overseeing the health insurance industry. Unlike Democratic proposals, it would not set up new federally regulated purchasing pools for individuals and small businesses. Instead, it would allow individuals to use the Internet to purchase lower-cost coverage available anywhere in the country. That idea won't please insurance commissioners from states with strong consumer protections, who have argued it will set off a "race to the bottom" that undermines coverage for those in frail health.

The plan would offer tax deductions and tax credits to help make the purchase of health insurance more affordable for individuals. It would provide grants to states to help set up high-risk pools for people with medical problems who are denied coverage by commercial insurers. And it would allow employers to automatically sign workers up for the company's coverage – similar to what's done with 401(k) retirement plans.

The GOP bill would take on medical malpractice, limiting jury awards for pain and suffering and creating new health courts in which a specially trained judge would hear and decide cases involving medical negligence.

It would give doctors what amounts to veto power over recommendations from a new federal board that's been assigned to compare the benefits of new treatments, tests and medications. Recommendations from the Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research could not be enacted without the approval of the medical specialty society that would be affected."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/29/house-republicans-unveil-_n_247301.html

Plenty of plans. Reid is just so typically lacking in intelligence that he's not capable of reading or understanding them. Thus, like a typical liberal, since he can't understand them, he claims they don't exist. That works in the Obama Party, where facts are ignored and talking points are the only thing that anyone believes, but not in the real world.